Barrack delivers a significant and alarming message to Lebanon

Weeks prior to the newly appointed Lebanese ambassador Michel Issa arrival, US Special Envoy Tom Barrack posted on his X account a long yet notable statement regarding Syria and Lebanon, especially with regards to the Hezbollah dilemma, the prospects of peace or war, potential postponement of Lebanese elections, among others.

Barrack praised the Gaza Peace Summit held in Sharam el-Sheikh on October 13, 2025, and the roadmap that it had laid out: one of peace, stability and prosperity. As he acknowledged the region’s shift away from “decades of fear and stagnation” towards “progress” and “inclusion,” he noted that two vital “pieces of this architecture of peace remain incomplete.”

The Syrian and Lebanese scenes remain contentious arenas where peace and stability are ambitions yet to be achieved. Barrack asserted that the “winds of reconciliation that began in Gaza must now cross Israel’s northern frontier,” emphasizing the two countries’ significance in the region’s ambitious plans.

The Syrian scene

According to Barrack, Syria, one of the world’s oldest civilizations, “lies in ruin.” The country has emerged from a devastating 14-year civil war that has decimated critical infrastructure, killed and displaced millions as well as held a detrimental blow to the economy (especially due to severe international sanctions).

As a result, and in acknowledging Damascus’ importance and regional role, Barrack and the US aided in relieving the Syrian population and the new interim government of previous burdens. Barrack noted in this regard that the 2019 Ceaser Syria Civilian Protection Act, along with various other sanctions, were repealed by the US Senate in order to “give Syria a chance” (referring to US President’s previous statement).

Washington’s overture is neither charity nor appeasement, but rather follows a fundamental theory in International Relations (IR): Realism (or Realpolitik). The latter is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the competitive and power-driven nature of global politics. It posits that states act primarily out of self-interest, seeking to enhance their power and influence while often disregarding moral considerations. From here, the interests of the US closely align with the sanctions’ lifting with regards to the new Syrian regime. It aims to allow for reconstruction efforts to commence (via allies and private investors) as well as the return of millions of displaced Syrians (both internally and externally). In addition, it helps those currently residing in the country to remain in their homeland. Interestingly, Barrack highlighted the importance of the US opening towards Syria with regards to the Christian community. He claimed that senior clerics have appealed to US Congress to ease and lift sanctions, given its significance to the presence of the Christian population in the country.

In light of Syria’s situation, Barrack pleaded that the US House of Representative follow suit in lifting burdening sanctions, “restoring to the Syrian people their right to work, to trade, and to hope.”

The Lebanese scene

The Lebanese political sphere seemed more bleak than its neighbor. Barrack outlined two essential milestones that Lebanon must fulfil to achieve peace and prosperity as the rest of the region: the disarmament of Hezbollah as well as the beginning of security and border discussions with Israel.

The US Special Envoy claimed that none of the above goals have been met. The issue of disarmament remains mere vocal ambitions, with no actual and concrete steps being taken on the ground. This was clear when he mentioned that “the Lebanese government’s principle of ‘One Country, One Military’ remains more aspiration than reality.” In addition, Lebanon has yet to begin serious discussions with Israel regarding contentious issues. This matter has long been a controversial issue, and has recently made remarkable headlines. Discussions and negotiations with Israel have met three distinct propositions. The first suggests direct negotiations (be it through military or civilian personnel), which is Barrack’s (along with the Trump administration) approach. The second suggests indirect negotiations to commence, via “the Mechanism” (between Lebanon and Israel, hosted by UNIFIL, chaired by the US, and including France) outlined in the November 2024 Cessation of Hostilities Agreement or via a similar framework to the 2022 Lebanon-Israel Maritime Border Deal, which many Lebanese officials (including the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun) advocate for. However, the third agrees with the second suggestion, but only after the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanese territories and the beginning of reconstructing southern Lebanon. This maximalist approach is what Hezbollah is reportedly seeking to advance.

Due to the failure in fulfilling the aforementioned goals, what resulted was “a fragile calm without peace, an army without authority and a government without control,” according to Barrack. Israel remains its occupation of 5 tactical positions along the “Blue Line,” and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Simultaneously, as Hezbollah retains its arms and its influence in the country (although it has waned considerably in comparison to the pre-war phase), the Lebanese Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, has been trapped in sectarian and political paralysis. Barrack also mentioned that aside from the Council of Minister’s fragmented decisions directed to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), the latter also lacks “the funding and authority to act.” If such a status quo persists, Barrack warned that Israel “may act unilaterally,” which would have grave consequences.

Despite the risk of war, Barrack claimed that an Israeli military attack on Hezbollah would backlash and serve the group’s political interests. The latter would most certainly seek to postpone the 2026 general elections “to preserve its power base and regroup.” This is especially true since the US Special Envoy believes the upcoming elections would bolster the group’s adversaries, as its weakened standing would be exposed. Therefore, Hezbollah would exploit such an Israeli operation and postpone the elections by invoking “national security” and “wartime instability,” which could, in turn, deepen existing political divisions and increase distrust amongst the country’s major components in an already fragile political system.

To this extent, Barrack encouraged Lebanese authorities to implement the aforementioned stated goals given their promising impacts regarding the country’s renewal. As the US spearheads regional transformation towards peace and prosperity, Barrack urged Lebanon to take action and join the journey of regional peace, prosperity and cooperation. Thus, with these words, the US Special Envoy concluded his statement: “Now is the time for Lebanon to act.”